@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:No murder is easier to commit with a knife than a gun.
I'm not sure that is universal. But I'll accept it as generally true.
But that doesn't matter. It is easier to murder with a gun, but it is easy enough with a knife that anyone who is bent on murder will be able to carry it out if all they have is a knife.
Cycloptichorn wrote:No, they're not.
The fact that people who are murdered with knives are just as dead as people who are murdered with guns means that knives are a appropriate comparison with guns.
Cycloptichorn wrote:You only think this because you've twisted logic to whatever it needs to be to support your obsession.
No logic needs to be twisted in order to note the reality that people who are murdered with knives are just as dead as people who are murdered with guns.
Cycloptichorn wrote:Tell ya what. If you and I were to go at it, and I had a gun (and I know how to use 'em) and you had a knife... feel good about your chances?
Clearly it is a bad idea to attack someone with a knife if they are able to defend themselves with a gun. But in a scenario where guns are removed from society (which is how we got to the point of talking about knife murders to begin with) people wouldn't have guns to defend themselves.
Cycloptichorn wrote:Or maybe, someone's mugging you and you don't have any weapon on you. Would you rather be up against a knife or a gun? Right.
Bad situation either way. I'm not sure it matters.
Cycloptichorn wrote:Haha, you should think a lot more carefully before you suggest things.
I posted an argument that will withstand any counterargument. That should be sufficient.
Cycloptichorn wrote:The purpose of laws is a deterrent. Laws are not intended to completely prevent actions that we don't want to occur from taking place, but merely to make them more difficult to undertake in order to lower the incidence rate to something acceptable. Explosives (such as in the McVeigh example) are highly regulated and indeed banned for the most part in this country because our government and citizens recognize that they are quite lethal to large groups of people and have no real legitimate citizen use.
Can people still make bombs? Sure, you can't stop physics. But it's hard to do so.
Not that hard to make a pipe bomb or a pressure cooker bomb.
Cycloptichorn wrote:People fail at doing so all the time and blow themselves up, or their bomb doesn't work well at all and nobody is really hurt.
True. But a lot of those stupid errors (assuming they don't blow themselves up) could be remedied by basic trial and error. If people who are bent on massacre were forced to turn to bombings, more bombers would test their bombs before deploying them against the public.
Cycloptichorn wrote:What do you think is going to happen to guns in this country, if we continue to see evidence that they are... quite lethal, and enable people to commit mass murder, quickly?
The main thing that is going to happen is we'll pass the SHARE Act. Otherwise, not much else is going to happen.
Cycloptichorn wrote:On top of that, as with explosives, there is no legitimate civilian use case for these faux-assualt weapons.
That is incorrect. Civilians use them for hunting, self-defense, and competitive sport.
It is unclear whether you are referring to all semi-auto weapons with detachable magazines, or if you are specifically referring to rifles with a pistol grip. Same answer either way though.
Cycloptichorn wrote:There is no situation in which you can describe a legitimate need for a citizen to have the sort of firepower the Vegas or Texas shooter had.
Well that's the thing with rights. We don't have to "need" anything. If there is no legitimate reason to ban or restrict something, we have the right to have it and it doesn't matter whether anyone thinks we need it.
That's a longstanding rule when dealing with fundamental Constitutional rights. If there is no legitimate reason for a restriction on a right, then any such restriction is unconstitutional. Note:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny
Cycloptichorn wrote:You are making the EXACT CASE that will be made for banning these weapons.
Well setting aside the fact that the description of restrictions on bombs came from you and not me, if people try to make such a case they will fail because their claims will be factually untrue.
I'm not entirely clear what you mean by "these weapons", if you are referring to only to rifles with a pistol grip, or if you mean all semi-autos with detachable magazines, but the argument will fail either way.
If someone tries to claim that adding a pistol grip to a rifle makes it more dangerous, their argument will fail because it is untrue.
If someone tries to claim that all semi-autos with detachable magazines are a menace to society, their argument will fail because it is untrue.
Cycloptichorn wrote:And it's going to happen eventually, because there's no real counter-argument for having them be legal,
There is a very strong counterargument. The fact that there is no good reason for such a ban makes such a ban unconstitutional.
There is no good reason for banning pistol grips on rifles.
There is no good reason for banning all semi-autos with detachable magazines.
Cycloptichorn wrote:People like myself will NEVER stop pushing for most of these types of guns to be outlawed, and eventually we're going to win.
Just like that knight in Monty Python that had all of his arms and legs chopped off?
You guys have already destroyed liberalism as a political force in America through your previous efforts to violate the Constitution. You have no more ability to try again.
If you did have the ability to try again, you'd just do even more damage to liberalism. But having already achieved 100% destruction, it's all pretty much over.
Because of the 2013 gun control debacle, the Republicans are going to hold the White House for the next 20 years.
And even after 20 years of Republican rule, the Democrats won't return to power until they purge their liberals and nominate a nice moderate who will compromise with the right.
Cycloptichorn wrote:Hope you give yours up peacefully, but we'll get them either way here in a few years.
Your dreams of violating the Constitution are chilling. I'm glad liberalism has destroyed itself so it is no longer a threat to the Constitution.
Cycloptichorn wrote:You're insecure and a bit insane.
Nonsense.
